Hellen K wrote: Btw, in case you want to set up a strawman I don't support invading Iran. But I do think it is necessary to pressure it to clean up its human right record and open up its nuclear facility for inspections. Iran human right record ( because of its lack of crime) look pale in comparison to the state especially since the states is the largest purveyor of violence.. I don't know I think your (US) idea is ill-fated you are will to compromise the lives of countless Iranian men women and children and commit to a mass murderous war against innocent for reasons that are outside the american people interest.. May be you could launch a war against Kuwait,it has one of the most gruesome human rights record, possibly worst than what was going on under saddam hussein in Iraq Or may be you could invade or pressure the saudis,their regime is atrocious on human right if you compare to the Iranians.. my opinion about you is not so good because your idea of attacking or even pressuring Iranians does display that you dont really give a damn about human rights; mainly the first human right one must give to the Iranians is the right to live in peace.. truly helen , I think u should seek medical attention. we know how costly sanction or pressure can mean.

Vietnam, a country made famous by war, has a unique and rich civilisation, spectacular scenery and friendly people. From the Red River Delta in the north to the Mekong River in the south, the scenes throughout Vietnam are timeless, with green rice paddies tended by labourers in conical hats.

"In the U.S. at least citizens will be outraged when they do find out the government is violating its own professed principles. In the U.S. at least the charge of hypocrisy means something." Yes, when citizens do find out--i.e., if the hypocritical media ever allow them to. Why do those of us who are indeed outraged feel like such a minority?

Btw, in case you want to set up a strawman I don't support invading Iran. But I do think it is necessary to pressure it to clean up its human right record and open up its nulear facility for inspections.

I make this disclaimer because nuance is obviously lacking in your writings. They reflect a very one track mind which sees the world as "good v.s. evil". At least you have something in common with Bush.The only difference is in your moralizing the U.S. is the ultimate villian.

 

Helen K

You wrote:

Do the tactics covered in the following reports represent something that Iran is doing to the United States or something that the United States is doing to Iran?

Iran does nothing to the U.S., it can do nothing even if it has the bomb.

I am talking about what Iran does to its own people.

Foreign policies are not the defining features of a society, for the simple fact that international politics is a very dirty game. No one is clean in that department. The U.S. just happens to be the most powerful country in the world. But how does China's cozying up to Sudan's homicidal regime rank on the moral scale, for example? In the U.S. at least citizens will be outraged when they do find out the government is violating its own professed principles. In the U.S. at least the charge of hypocrisy means something. In many countries no one will blink an eye over government hypocrisy, it is taken for granted.

Most people are not aware of what goes on in foreign politics and Americans are not unique in being uninformed or misinformed.You do your bit of misinformation on this site, even though your biases come from another direction.

The value of a society can be seen more clearly in what it professes to believe and how these principles are implemented in the civil society. The U.S. is probably quite behind comparing to Europe and Canada in putting democratic principles in practice, but there is no question that it is way ahead of Iran, where women are still executed for being raped. Regardless of hyperbole from the radical left (with howlers like comparing Bush to Hitler), the U.S. is still a relatively civilized place in the world and definitely way ahead of some of the people you defend (Iran, North Korea, Sudan, the list goes on)

 

Helen K

P.S.

I have to say I am quite impressed by the way Iran handled the British captives. The Iranian president certainly is not a mad man. He proves himself to be a world class politician. The little drama that he staged before he released the Brits was really elegant. It was a publicity coup. I mean it sincerely.

 

 

 

Friends:

Here is another simple, straightforward question: Do the tactics covered in the following reports represent something that Iran is doing to the United States or something that the United States is doing to Iran?

Tough Talk about Iran: How Far Will It Go?" Newsweek, January 22, 2007 
"Radical Sunni Group Claims Responsibility for Bus Attack," AKI, February 14, 2007 (as posted to the Intelligence Summit blog)
"Report: Bomb Kills 18 Revolutionary Guardsmen in Iran," Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press, February 14, 2007 (as posted to the Washington Post)
"Bus bombed in southeast Iran, agency says 18 dead," Edmund Blair, Reuters, February 14, 2007 (as posted to the Star online)
"Iran parades suspect in Zahedan bombing," Agence France Presse, Febrary 17, 2007 (as posted to Dawn)
"Order restores after blast at girls school in Iran," CNN, February 17, 2007
"Report: Weapons used in attack in Zahedan, Iran come from U.S.," Xinhua, February 17, 2007
"Iran summons Pakistan envoy over bomb blasts," Agence France Presse, February 18, 2007 (as posted to the Iran Focus website) 
"Gunfire over the Pakistan border rattles Iranian leaders," Ghulam Hasnain Kulao and Dean Nelson, Sunday Times, March 4, 2007
"Tehran Blames the West for Eth nic Unrest," Kimia Sanati, Inter Press Service, March 5, 2007 (as posted to the HighBeam Encyclopedia website)
"As the U.S. Mounts Pressure Musharraf Embarks on Iranian Containment," G. Parthasarathy, Business Line, March 8, 2007
"Hostages caught in Tehran-Washington crossfire," Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, March 31, 2007
"Iran accuses US jet fighters of violating airspace," Agence France Presse, April 1, 2007 (as posted to Channel NewsAsia) 
"The Secret War against Iran," Brian Ross and Christopher Isham, ABC - TV News, April 3, 2007
"Pakistani milit ants staging raids inside Iran--ABC," Reuters - AlertNet, April 3, 2007 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA 

Friends:

For the record (and in case anybody's paying attention): In posing my two questions the other day (Sat, 2007-03-31 17:02), I was curious to learn on the basis of what criteria the people posting comments to this ZNet blog determine that a state's policies and practices are worthy of our interest and concern and above all high-profile criticism?

For example, is it because a state possesses a military and uses it to threaten and violently dominate others? 

Is it because a state possesses nuclear weapons, and has a habit of launching wars against other states?

Or is it because a state incarcerates its own population (and to what extent)?

And so on. -- The point being, let somebody spell this out for me, and on the basis of these measurable criteria, let us take a look at the real world.

Anonymous (Sat, 2007-03-31 10:54) is free to take an interest in and to criticize the domestic policies and practices of whichever states happen to be threatened with attack by the United States -- at the present moment, Iran topping the list.

But Anonymous should not be surprised when very many of the people who contribute to ZNet do not observe the same framework of interests.

Good for them.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Denk:

In countries such as the United States and Great Britain (and elsewhere, too, such as Australia and Israel), the now roughly 42 months of focus on the western Sudan ought to be understood above all as a case of Afghanistan- and Iraq- avoidance.   (For a very good analysis of this, see "The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency," Mahmood Mamdani, London Review of Books, March 8, 2007.) 

Both psychologically and politically, the "Crisis in Darfur" (by which I mean not the actual material events on the ground, but their PR-uses in places such as Washington, London, and among the NGO networks) is cost-free.  No one in the States, for example, will run you down for shedding tears of "solidarity" with the victims of the "genocide" perpetrated by the Arabs in Khartoum.  And if you're really good at playing this game, you can even get away with denouncing the U.S. Government for its "inaction" in the face of "genocide."  (Samantha Power was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for such a performance.)  But the criticisms that you must be sure to avoid are (a) those directed at the atrocities that follow from the deliberate actions of the U.S. Government, and (b) those directed at the cynical PR-type uses of atrocities -- real or fabricated -- in this game of Gotcha, it really doesn't matter -- that can be attributed to Official Enemies.

By the way: In case anybody wants to view a very powerful series of presentations on a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions for which -- unlike the western region of the Sudan -- we bear a direct responsibility, and not simply a phony case of guilt-by-inaction, check out "Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Humanitarian Situation in Iraq" (C-SPAN, December 11, 2006).  The presenters at this event included two co-authors of the important document, The Human Cost of the War in Iraq: A Mortality Study, 2002-06 (October, 2006), as well as the University of Michigan's Juan Cole.  Great stuff.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

hello mr peterson,

 

in general butler's words, there are the "brains" who plan for war, the "finger man" who finger the bogeyman, then we have the cheerleaders  like rushdie [aka laptop bombardiers] to hard sell the  war to the sheeples. the kosovo invasion was a classic application of uncle sham's recipe for "manufacturing consent". its now being applied to sudan, once the state dept declared it a  "genocide", as if on cue, the cheerleaders will emerge to clamour for another "humanitarian intervention", the sheeples will again dutifully line up to lend their support, many might even sincerely think that they are doing another good cause for human kind, without the slightest clue that they are once again being led by the nose to support another imperialistic war.

while the duplicity of uncle sham and his cheerleaders needs no introduction, i find the mass's outpouring of compassion over sudan etc  rather amusing.  when i witness the mass rallies rooting for us intervention in sudan i cant help but wonder where are these good peoples when "our kind of guy" suharto was doing his awful thing in east timor, 1997, the state sponsored mass rape against chinese indonesians in 1998, the state sponsored pogrom against muslims in gujarat in 2001... just to name a few ?
i dont recall any mass rallies denouncing such atrocities, let alone screaming for action. why?
so when the perpetrators are us buddies, there will be no cheerleaders calling for action, therefore the masses will not be losing any sleep over some minor "incidents" in some thirdworld hellholes?
such selective compassion sounds like those canned laughter in the sitcoms to me, which can be switch  on and off on cue.
no wonder the do gooder's "to do" list always seem to fit in so well with uncle sham's agenda. they dont call them sheeples for nothing.

In reply to mtbrad, I wrote:

"Not explcitly. But if everytime someone raises any concerns about Iran's internal repressions he is met with snide remarks or disbelief or attempts to divert the conversation such as "but the U.S. blah blah" then I would consider it an underhanded way of apologizing. I think my interpretation is not unjustified.

To make an analogy, the American Communists in the early half of the 20th centry did not argue that Stalin's crimes were justified, instead they either dismissed them as a fabrications of the Western media or divert the issue by questioning the motives of those who brought them up. That is Peterson's approach here regarding all atrocities by U.S's enemies, whether it is Iran's human right record or the killing in Darfur."

To which Peterson replied,

"First, how do the quote-unquote human rights records of the governments of Iran and the United States stack up and compare? And measured by what criteria, exactly? Second, when we speak about "horrid" policies and practices (and the like), what is it that makes them horrid? Again, I mean measured by what criteria?"

I rest my case.

 

Helen K

Friends:

Several posts to this comments section (A, B, C, D, and esp. E and F -- apologies if I've left any out) lead me to raise two sets of basic questions.

Okay.  Here goes nothing:

First, how do the quote-unquote human rights records of the governments of Iran and the United States stack up and compare?  And measured by what criteria, exactly?

Second, when we speak about "horrid" policies and practices (and the like), what is it that makes them horrid?  Again, I mean measured by what criteria?

Thanks.

 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Use a little bit logic Helen , if you have 20 people signing Anonymous, how do we respond to the right anonymous and to the right post? give us your opinion or any name or alias, but please make a recognizable post. ( David does not seem to be mean with you, believe me, if he find something wrong with what you say, he will back its retort with archives and files.. for free so take the rebuttals as favors). I dont think Peterson is anti- american but if you ask my canadian opinion, you would find that the arrogance of your neo-cons is such alien paranoia itself, it is not difficult to understand why small countries become anti-american.. america is suffering a self imposed paranoia to benefit a few.

The US would love to undermine China and Russia emerging economies by also controlling Iran Oil. It is pretending that it is the other (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan) countries are a threat and are forceful in their intent to carry on war(s). so wherever there is oil in a country , there is US profiteers like Cheney and al Iraq is the best example there is, Hussein was apparently making deals with the German and French for of cheaper oil. This in my opinion could had make the price of oil cheaper , however the result would had been less profitable for the american, the brits and the saudis.. I agree the world is a better place without hussein but it would had been a better places without the bushes of this world than the hussein.. Price of oil doubled since the war in Iraq, it cost me twice as much because of american imperial hold on oil.

You wrote: I don't think anyone here is defending the policies of Iran or the others you mention

Not explcitly. But if everytime someone raises any concerns about Iran's internal repressions he is met with snide remarks or disbelief or attempts to divert the conversation such as "but the U.S. blah blah" then I would consider it an underhanded way of apologizing. I think my interpretation is not unjustified.

To make an analogy, the American Communists in the early half of the 20th centry did not argue that Stalin's crimes were justified, instead they either dismissed them as a fabrications of the Western media or divert the issue by questioning the motives of those who brought them up. That is Peterson's approach here regarding all atrocities by U.S's enemies, whether it is Iran's human right record or the killing in Darfur.

I don't think Peterson and other zneters actually support regimes like Iran or North Korea and their horrid policies, but in effect they (I am not saying you specifically) are making excuses for them because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". They may not even be conscious of it, because preaching to and hanging out with converts all day has an effect of insolating one against common sense. That is how religious cults work. Znet in many way resemebles a religion in its insistence of lefitst doctrinal purity, propensity for sectarian squabbles and often a genuine intolerence of oppsing view points (These are not unique to the radical left, you find those attitudes in far right forums and Zionist sites as well, the fringes of the political spectrum in fact have a lot in common)

If the Iranian regime (or Sudan, or North Korea, you name it) becomes an U.S. ally I bet Peterson will be busily linking and cut and pasting from Human Right watch and Amnesty International and bitterly complaining how the U.S. aids dictators. In the end many zneters don't see Iran (or any other country for that matter) as a real country with all its beauty and ugliness, but only as a stick to beat the U.S. with: it is just a prop in short.(Yes, Iran is a fascinating country with a lot of beauty too, I am not from the "bomb them to stone age" school.) I can understand why some of my Iranian friends,--no, they are not supporters of the Shah,-- were pissed off after reading some articles about Iran on znet, or why Pol Pot's victims were upset at Chomsky (I know Chomsky's defence but I won't go into that here because it is really off topic)

That being said we should critically look at the role of the US as a global bully and how this facilitates this right to come here and speak out.

That is true, but it doesn't preclude criticizing injustice perpetrating by U.S.'s enemies.

I don't agree with Chomsky that one can only influence one's own govenment. In the U.S. we have a lot more impacts than that. Like it or not, the U.S. is a global power, whatever it does or does not do it will influence the world. Power is a funny thing, even not exercising it is in itself an assertion of power.

That being the case, the issue is how the U.S. should engage the world in a responsible manner, taken into account the constraints and the truism that all countries look out for its own interests,--or the elite interests if you like, though not exclusively. Different interests do converge from time to time. Real politik doesn't necessarily always lead to bad outcomes, the question is how to balance different considerations. Afterall we do not live in an ideal world.

Sadly I don't find any realistic suggestion on znet from that direction. Peterson is probably worse than the other bloggers in that regard. It is more like you are damned either way. I don't consider such an approach constructive criticism.

I don't think any country should have the nuke, and as such, the country that has the mose (sic), the US, should be the last one to tell others they can't have them.

The U.S. should persue disarmament and stop policies that will esculate the arms race (such as missile defence), that we all agree. But that is not an excuse to condone further proliferation by other countries. Realistically the U.S. will not get rid of its nukes and no one can force it to except for American voters. But I don't see how it justifies everyone should have his dirty bomb. Countries like Iran and North Korea are extremely unstable. They don't have the democratic safegurad of the U.S. There is no telling who gets the finger on the button and how the decision to use the bomb is made. Iran having the bomb will no doubt accelarate the arm race in a region full of unstable regimes. Israel is not the only country with the incentive mind you.

However, I think you are also conflating a few issues here too. No where is Iran claiming the right to develop nuclear weapons and no where is it claiming it is attempting to. Whether or not they have the righ to develop nuclear power is not even under debate, they have that right under UN rules. The only debate is whether or not they are pursuing a bomb, which no one has proven. Given the US track record on nations and thier weapons of mass destruction, we should be very leery of any claims of Iranian nuclear development.

No, I didn't say Iran claims it has a right. But many Zneters think it does. This is usually formulated as "Iran has a right to self defence against U.S. aggressions". That is ridiculous because Iran doesn't have the technology to send the nuke to the U.S. anyway even if it has the bomb. When countries like Iran acquires the bomb they are more likely to use it to bully their neighbors.They may drop one or two next door in regional conflicts, poisoning both the neighbors and themselves with radiation fallout. I can't imagine what it would have been like if Iran or Iraq got the nuke during the Iran-Iraq war. Hence I said the debate on Znet is moot.

 

Helen K

You wrote: I don't think anyone here is defending the policies of Iran or the others you mention

Not explcitly. But if everytime someone raises any concerns about Iran's internal repressions he is met with snide remarks or disbelief or attempts to divert the conversation such as "but the U.S. blah blah" then I would consider it an underhanded way of apologizing. I think my interpretation is not unjustified. To make an analogy, the American Communists in the early half of the 20th centry did not argue that Stalin's crimes were justified, instead they either dismissed them as a fabrications of the Western media or divert the issue by questioning the motives of those who brought them up. That is Peterson's approach here regarding all atrocities by U.S's enemies, whether it is Iran's human right record or the killing in Darfur. I don't think Peterson and other zneters actually support regimes like Iran or North Korea and their horrid policies, but in effect they (I am not saying you specifically) are making excuses for them because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". They may not even be conscious of it, because preaching to and hanging out with converts all day has an effect of insolating one against common sense. That is how religious cults work. Znet in many way resemebles a religion in its insistence of lefitst doctrinal purity, propensity for sectarian squabbles and often a genuine intolerence of oppsing view points (These are not unique to the radical left, you find those attitudes in far right forums and Zionist sites as well, the fringes of the political spectrum in fact have a lot in common) If the Iranian regime (or Sudan, or North Korea, you name it) becomes an U.S. ally I bet Peterson will be busily linking and cut and pasting from Human Right watch and Amnesty International and bitterly complaining how the U.S. aids dictators. In the end many zneters don't see Iran (or any other country for that matter) as a real country with all its beauty and ugliness, but only as a stick to beat the U.S. with: it is just a prop in short.(Yes, Iran is a fascinating country with a lot of beauty too, I am not from the "bomb them to stone age" school.) I can understand why some of my Iranian friends,--no, they are not supporters of the Shah,-- were pissed off after reading some articles about Iran on znet, or why Pol Pot's victims were upset at Chomsky (I know Chomsky's defence but I won't go into that here because it is really off topic) That being said we should critically look at the role of the US as a global bully and how this facilitates this right to come here and speak out. That is true, but it doesn't preclude criticizing injustice perpetrating by U.S.'s enemies. I don't agree with Chomsky that one can only influence one's own govenment. In the U.S. we have a lot more impacts than that. Like it or not, the U.S. is a global power, whatever it does or does not do it will influence the world. Power is a funny thing, even not exercising it is in itself an assertion of power. That being the case, the issue is how the U.S. should engage the world in a responsible manner, taken into account the constraints and the truism that all countries look out for its own interests,--or the elite interests if you like, though not exclusively. Different interests do converge from time to time. Real politik doesn't necessarily always lead to bad outcomes, the question is how to balance different considerations. Afterall we do not live in an ideal world. Sadly I don't find any realistic suggestion on znet from that direction. Peterson is probably worse than the other bloggers in that regard. It is more like you are damned either way. I don't consider such an approach constructive criticism. I don't think any country should have the nuke, and as such, the country that has the mose (sic), the US, should be the last one to tell others they can't have them. The U.S. should persue disarmament and stop policies that will esculate the arms race (such as missile defence), that we all agree. But that is not an excuse to condone further proliferation by other countries. Realistically the U.S. will not get rid of its nukes and no one can force it to except for American voters. But I don't see how it justifies everyone should have his dirty bomb. Countries like Iran and North Korea are extremely unstable. They don't have the democratic safegurad of the U.S. There is no telling who gets the finger on the button and how the decision to use the bomb is made. Iran having the bomb will no doubt accelarate the arm race in a region full of unstable regimes. Israel is not the only country with the incentive mind you. However, I think you are also conflating a few issues here too. No where is Iran claiming the right to develop nuclear weapons and no where is it claiming it is attempting to. Whether or not they have the righ to develop nuclear power is not even under debate, they have that right under UN rules. The only debate is whether or not they are pursuing a bomb, which no one has proven. Given the US track record on nations and thier weapons of mass destruction, we should be very leery of any claims of Iranian nuclear development. No, I didn't say Iran claims it has a right. But many Zneters think it does. This is usually formulated as "Iran has a right to self defence against U.S. aggressions". That is ridiculous because Iran doesn't have the technology to send the nuke to the U.S. anyway even if it has the bomb. When countries like Iran acquires the bomb they are more likely to use it to bully their neighbors.They may drop one or two next door in regional conflicts, poisoning both the neighbors and themselves with radiation fallout. I can't imagine what it would have been like if Iran or Iraq got the nuke during the Iran-Iraq war. Hence I said the debate on Znet is moot.

Helen K

What is a name to you Mr. Peterson? Can you say any of my observations about you is wrong? What difference does it make whether I call myself John, Peter, Mary, Jane, the flying spagetti monster or just anonymous? I try to register before but your system asks me to register again everytime I try to log in so I just don't bother anymore.

If it pleases you I will just sign my posts.

 

 

Helen K

Friends:

Here's one dedicated to people who hide behind anonymity -- and use every form of baiting in the manual:

"Beyond Munich: The UN Security Council Helps Disarm a Prospective Further Victim of U.S. Aggression," Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, ZNet, March 31, 2007 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA 

I don't think anyone here is defending the policies of Iran or the others you mention. I think we are attacking the US policy of using violence or the threat of violence to impose its demands on to Iran et al. You are conflating defending against US aggression and defending of a countries policies. I don't think any country should have the nuke, and as such, the country that has the mose, the US, should be the last one to tell others they can't have them. I can't speak for Peterson, but I would say the US has many advantages over Iran et al., like the ability to come here and speak out against its actions. That being said we should critically look at the role of the US as a global bully and how this facilitates this right to come here and speak out. If the US were not a global Empire with the largest military in the history of the world and the biggest nuclear arsenal at its disposal, would we be able to speak out against it. Does the free speech come because it does not threaten the US? Does Iranian acendancy threaten the US and therefore, it is not allowed to operate outside of US demands? As for the two seperate issues regarding Iranian nukes, if the later is yes than the former is moot. That is to say, if they have the right to nuclear development than whether or not they are seeking it is not of concern. However, I think you are also conflating a few issues here too. No where is Iran claiming the right to develop nuclear weapons and no where is it claiming it is attempting to. Whether or not they have the righ to develop nuclear power is not even under debate, they have that right under UN rules. The only debate is whether or not they are pursuing a bomb, which no one has proven. Given the US track record on nations and thier weapons of mass destruction, we should be very leery of any claims of Iranian nuclear development. This is of course all caused by the Bush admin's rejection of the Iranian offer to cooperate with the US and the UN on both nuclear power/weapons and Iraq. They purposly created this situation, as they did with Iraq, to increase the conflict and provoke a military resolution. That is the only card they have left and they are playing fast and loose with it.

in the playground. He had weapons. Everybody hated him. Most of us just wanted him to go away, but some of us plotted revenge with weapons of our own, although our weapons could never hope to compete with his. He was always flying off the handle and beating kids up. We always spoke disparagingly of him. The big bully just got meaner and stupider. Psychologists tended to say he was insecure and "acted out." He always believed he was right about everything and reacted violently to criticism. Some of us tried talking to him, but we learned he was just a big stupid jerk and would never, never see himself for the ignorant lout he was. Some of us were permanently damaged. T

mtbrad, You wrote: There is a difference between being against the U.S. government and being against some administration or some policies of the government Of course there is, but a casual look at Znet blog especially David Peterson's entries one gets the distinct impression there is nothing right about the United States, regardless of administration and policies. It is as though the U.S. is intrinsically evil and he supports and defends anyone who is an enemy of the U.S., whether it is Iran, Syria, Sudan, Serbia or the North Korea. He is so predictable that I will be a rich man if I win a dollar everytime I bet correctly his stance on an issue: Always take the opposite side to the U.S. mainstream opinion regardless of its merits or lack thereof. But at least I give Peterson the credit of being non partisian, he is an equal opportunity American hater regardless of policies and political party in power. Are there multiple sources claiming that Iran is seeking weapon specific nuclear enrichment? Or are you picking your source based on the info they offer? Who is whitewashing the Mullahs There are two seperate issues here. One, whether Iran is seeking the nuke. Two, whether it is entitled to have the nuke. Since many posters here seem to agree that Iran has the inalienable right to the nuke (no doubt relating to their hatred of Israel though as someone mentioned I can't see how Iran can nuke Israel without anihilating the Palestinians as well) That being the case whether Iran is seeking nuclear weapons becomes a moot debate on znet. It is not as if Peterson and his supporters on Znet would condemn Iran even if there is incontrovertible evidence that it is building a bomb. There will be other excuses. Personally, I don't know if it is actively building nuclear weapons or not. It is all speculations if Iran doesn't permit inspection (which is probably its right). However I think it is definitely a bad idea as it will certainly destablize the region even further. Peterson is whitewashing the Mullahs (and other enemies of the U.S.) It is clear from his snide remarks about human rights groups and NGOs which bring up Iran's internal repression. The enemy of the U.S. is my friend seems to be Peterson's motto.

Denk:

About Alexander Cockburn's "Where are the Laptop Bombardiers Now?" (CounterPunch, March 24/25), another fine element was his recognition that "There is plenty of blame to go around."

Among the "war party" that dates back to the first-half of the 1990s and the breakup of Yugoslavia: 

laptop bombardiers such as Salman Rushdie were in full war paint. Among the progressives the liberal interventionists thumped their tin drums, often by writing pompous pieces attacking the antiwar "hard left". Mini-pundits Todd Gitlin and Michael Berube played this game eagerly. Berube lavished abuse on Noam Chomsky and other clear opponents of the war, mumbling about the therapeutic potential of great power interventionism, piously invoking the tradition of "left internationalism".
…………
Post coldwar Liberal interventionism came of age with the onslaught on Serbia. Liberal support for the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were the afterglows. Now that night has descended and illusions about the great crusade shattered for ever, let us tip our hats to those who opposed this war from the start ­ the real left, the libertarians and those without illusions about the "civilizing mission" of the great powers.

Rather than opposing Great Power warmaking -- and the great warmaking of the Greatest Power -- these so-called "liberal internationalists" advocate it, on two basic conditions:

(a) that they can articulate Great Power warmaking through a rhetoric of human rights; and
(b) that in so advocating it, they can establish their moral bona fides among the networks of intellectuals and artists and fianciers with whom they like to hang and build up their portfolios.

A very cynical career- and power-oriented tenure track indeed.  Diogenes' lantern never shines there.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

 

***attempting to state the U.S. and Iran are moral equivlents which is utterly absurd.  ***

you are absolutely right sgtr, no one in the world can hold up a candle to uncle sham .....

"Pick almost any date on the calendar and it'll turn out that the US either started a war, ended a war, perpetrated a massacre or sent its UN Ambassador into the Security Council to declare to issue an ultimatum..."

 [http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03242007.html]

Zinn brushed a portrait of todays Iraq http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=12413 dont repeat the same crime with Iran.

Iraq was about chemical/bio and nuclear and a link to terrorism. It was all or nothing. Without the "mushroom cloud" and the "substantial quantities of uranium from Niger" and the "suitcase nukes that could easily be passed to members of al-Qaida", there would have been no invasion. Let's not pick and choose which parts of history we want to highlight. Are you saying that any country that has a history of supporting terrorism, has human rights violations and uses rhetoric about removing a regime from the map or about religious crusades should not have nuclear weapons? If so I agree, and we should start with the USA. Free economies in the absence of tribal affiliations, like the chamber of commerce? I never criticize Israel, I criticize our government support of Israel.

There is a difference between being against the U.S. government and being against some administration or some policies of the government. Otherwise, all those republicans that were attacking Clinton hate America. I don't think folks on z get there news from a single source. Are there multiple sources claiming that Iran is seeking weapon specific nuclear enrichment? Or are you picking your source based on the info they offer? Who is whitewashing the Mullahs [sic]?

Your point being?

Because someone has an agenda in collecting news that shows Iran in a bad light the news has to be fabricated? So since you and Zneters have ano bvious agenda against the U.S. government one should automatically dismiss the dirts you dugged up about U.S. foreign policy as fictions?

If the news is not fabricated on what ground do you defend Iran? Being against U.S. invasion doesn't mean that you have to whitewash the Mullahs.

SGTR:

Just so that we're clear: There is no problem with the fact that you've (or anyone else) recommended a source or sources of information. 

My inquiry (to repeat myself) is: Who's really behind the Iran Focus website, which you've identified as a "clearinghouse"?    

David Peterson
Chicago, USA 

Friends: 

For those who like to cling to the stature of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi while working the Western military-interventionary circuit, how about the text of Ebadi's acceptance speech?

Ebadi used the gift of the 2003 Nobel to warn against worldly powers that "have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of 11 September and the war on international terrorism as a pretext."  Ebadi noted that the "concerns of human rights' advocates increase when they observe that international human rights laws are breached not only by their recognized opponent under the pretext of cultural relativity, but that these principles are also violated in Western democracies…."  And, Ebadi asked, "why is it that some decisions and resolutions of the UN Security Council are binding, while some other resolutions of the Council have no binding force?" 

To which we might add: While some other resolutions can't even be put to vote.  Let alone adopted over the vetoes of the Permanent Five.  And the veto of the Super Permanent One, above all.

"In the Name of the God of Creation and Wisdom," Shirin Ebadi, December 10, 2003 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

SGTR seem to be good at disinformation , we could elect him as minister of information in Iraq, nothing he says has a remote connection to true.. how many kids are gonna die because of insensitive bullshit and conquest for hegemony of american power?
David, there's another psycho, somehow < i'd feel safer with Iranian having nukes than american having them..
Even Khomeinei was reported not being a war criminal [such as
americans] he forbidded the use of chemecals weapons even when
the US was providing intelligence and chemecals weapons to be used against Iran.. SGTR you are just another apologist of american terrorism and war crimes.
countless of children died because of your common psychose with right wingers. The devil will salute u in hell..
SGTR, the no-fly zone empeached Hussein to rebuit his military.. Iraq was a defenseless country when the US attacked.
( it only attack defenseless countries)

The Iran Focus newstories are clearly marked as coming from newswires.  It is a clearinghouse.  What's the problem? 

Iraq and nuclear weapons are/were not an issue. It was chemical/bio.  I honestly cannot tell what point you are attempting to make.

Three countries inforced the no fly zone, the U.S., Britain, and France. That is hardly unilateral.  If you read all of the UN documents pertaining to Gulf War 1, the no fly zone is authorized. But, the no fly zones are not an issue pertaining to Iran.   

As I have asked repeatedly, if Iran's pursuit of nuclear power is peaceful, why are they using a technology that can create nuclear weapons?  Iran may not currently be producing nuclear weapons. The issue is PREVENTING them from having the capability to do so. (An aside, a British intelligence agency/firm says Iran will have the capability in under 3 years.)  In light of the mullah's record of terrorist support, human rights abuses, and rhetoric about destroying Israel and all things non-muslim, it probably isn't a good idea to let them have that capability.  You seem to think otherwise.   In light of such, I am holding other countries to the same standard as the U.S.  I should only hope the rest of the world could one day have freely elected governments, freedom of religion, and free economies in the absence of tribal affiliations. 

If you truely believe "the only government that you are responsible for is your own," I will keep that in mind the next time you or any of your Znet brethren discuss Israel.

 

Friends:

Elsewhere, SGTR has advocated that we "please read [the Iran Focus website] and learn why the Iranian government must be stopped."  (See "Learn Who You Are Defending," March 25.)

However, who is behind the Iran Focus website? 

One friend of mine believes that it looks like some combination of the Michael Ledeen - Iran-Syria Operations Group - "Iran Democracy Funding" - National Council of Resistance of Iran outfits.  (Including their many incarnations and offshoots.)    

But -- let's leave it up to SGTR to explain.

"Meet the 'Whack Iran' Lobby," Daniel Schulman, Mother Jones, October 6, 2006 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Now you are showing your ignorance concerning the situation. You first mentioned inspections of Iraq in 1991, which there were almost continuously through till around 1997. Then Clinton pulled the inspectors and bombed Bagdad and other sites (mostly water treatment and power generation sites). Going into the current occupation there were inspectors on the ground right up till the invasion. Remember Sadam destroying a bunch of missles because of the dispute over their range. Also you had the IAEA stating openly in the UN that Iraq had no nuclear program. The arguement of the inspectors was that they needed more time to determine if Iraq had reconstituted its biolabs, which it turns out it did not. As far as the no fly zone goes, that was not even a UN project, it was a unilaterally enforced sanction by the US. It had no UN institutional backing, so I have no idea what you are talking about to check the 'UN documents pertaining to the no fly zones' because there are none. I would like you to prove that Iran is producing nuclear weapons. The IAEA is not claiming that. I don't even think bush and co. are claiming that. The UN and IAEA and the US intelligence agency have all stated that it would take between 7-10 years for Iran to make a bomb. So if they stopped allowing inspections a week ago, we have another 300-500 weeks before we need to get all hyper about Iranian nukes. I am not stating that the US and Iran are morel equivlents, I am only asking you to hold your own country to the standards you expect of others. If you cannot do this than you are a being US-centrist. Besides the only government that you are responsible for is your own.

Iraq didn't have major inspections - infact they obstructed inspections and kicked the inspectors out of the country - remember?  That's what started the war ball rolling.  Also, I don't understand what the no fly zones have to do with any of this.  If you read the UN documents pertaining to the no fly zones, perhaps you will understand them better.  So, to answer your question, to prove the destruction of a weapon, you allow inspections which is exactly what did not happen. 

As of 19 Mar 07, Iran stopped allowing inspectors to its nuclear facilities. Iran also has continued its enrichment program.  As stated previously, if Iran was solely interested in nuclear ENERGY, it would not be employing a technology that creates nuclear WEAPONS.  There is an important difference which is not recognized on the Znet board. 

Further, the actions or military of the US is not an issue here.  Do not obfuscate the issue.  You are attempting to state the U.S. and Iran are moral equivlents which is utterly absurd. 

I still think we should humbly let SGTR tell us how the US ought to use its 10,000 nuclear warheads. Apparently he/she thinks they're somehow different in purpose than the ones Iran is putatively developing. Aren't you all curious what that purpose is? (Don't jump to conclusions--let SGTR speak.) T

Ah, Iraq had major inspections of all of its sites in the 1990's along with sanctions and no fly zones over the north and south. Imagine if the UN said it was going to inspect US millitary facilities and weapons, that it was going to patrol a no fly zone over Texas and Alaska. That would not go down. How do you prove that you destoyed a weapon? As for Iran, you are not being honest SGTR, the Iranians have let the IAEA in to ispect its sites. Some other interesting info is that Iran has not invaded or attacked another country in over 50 years. If only the US could say that, or even if it could say that in the last 50 years there was a five year period when it did not attack another country. That is why the vast majority of people in the world fear the US, with its 10,000 nuclear war heads, far more than they fear Iran's possible one weapon in ten years.

I presume that Zneters are "moral" people it that they sincerely want good for man.  So tell me, does that same morality say it is a good idea to let a country that in 2006 held a Holoaust denial conference have a nuclear weapon? 

 

(yes Crayno, I believe you.  You have read all of the intelligence reports for the past 15 years and the governments of all Western were wrong.)

what are you talking about ? All US knew Iraq had no WMD at all nor was a threat.. every ones knew Iraq's regime was going to be unable to proof it had no such weapons.. The US planned an illegal invasion to place a puppet regime, it lost the election and it is now making sure Iraq stay in a civil war.. your governement should hang with the same rope as hussein for bringing war on helpless countries.

"The Baghdad regime, free of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons capabilities and programs from late 1991 on, never was able to prove for all those years that it did not possess biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons capabilities and programs. -- Are we enlightened Westerners to expect anything better from the Mullahs?"

The problem with your statement is that in 1991 NO ONE knew if Iraq was free of WMDs.  Iraq wouldn't let anyone inspect its facilities.  Are you forgetting that important piece of history?  Now, Iran seems to be playing the same games - not letting the appropriate authorities inspect.  If Iran's purposes are peacesful, contrary to all available evidence (and the evidence ignored by Zneters), why not allow inspections? 

Considering the Mullah's human rights abuses over the last 28 years along with their exporting of terrorism (again, ignored by Zneters), expressing a desire to destroy all things non-Muslim, and the desire to gain a hegmony over the Islamic world, enlightened Westerners can only expect the worst from Tehran.